Speaking at the American's for Prosperity Foundation Summit, the Republican White House hopeful criticized Clinton’s proposal for its high cost and said such a suggestion shows the Democratic presidential candidate’s lack of executive experience.

"Do you know the first question I asked? ‘How many children are born in the United States?’ Because, I was going to multiply that by the $5,000,” Giuliani said. “Because I ran a city. I've run a business. I know how to make a payroll and I know how to reduce expenses. ‘Do you know how much money it is per year?’ Twenty billion."

“Hillary, that's real money," he added. "You and Bill can't afford that. It's got to come out of somebody's pockets. You know who it comes out of?”

Giuliani went on to criticize Clinton, as well as fellow Democratic White House hopefuls Barack Obama and John Edwards charging that they are seeking "on-the- job executive training."

"In the case of the three leading Democrats, [they] have never run a city, they've never run a state, I don't think they've ever run a business," Giuliani said. "This is why they make proposals like this."

At a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus last week, Clinton said, "I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18, if they have finished high school, they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that down-payment on their first home."

Speaking to supporters in Chicago Thursday night, Clinton said that the proposal was only an "idea" not a policy of her presidential campaign.

"I was just trying to start a conversation, which I think is an important conversion, about how we make sure children from middle class, working families, poor families, have access to all the opportunities in life that many of us try to provide for our own children," she said. "So I am looking for a conversation and that was just an idea I threw out to see what kind of reaction I'd get."

soundoff(94 Responses)

I think Hillary has a wonderful plan. If every kid was born with a $5,000 US savings bond, it will definitely help one day for college expenses or down payment on home. There must, however, be restrictions on how this money can be used.

Twenty billion is not much .... how much again, are we spending in Iraq?

I am a liberal democrat (NOT a Hillary supporter thank you very much). I believe in anti-poverty measures.

But this business about giving newborns $5,000 is absurd. What a stupid proposal!

Rudy is right – where would the money come from? By raising taxes? If we are going to raise taxes there are plenty of places where extra money is sorely needed, not least of which is to get our fiscal house in order, or fund existing government programs.

This would be the most inefficient waste of government resources and would likely do nothing to provide real opportunities or reduce poverty.

It sounds like the type of populist promise a Latin American dictator might make: "Under my regime, pregnancies will only last three weeks!"

Maybe Hillary should stick to stealing other people's ideas and running a campaign based on fluff and brand-name recognition. Because whenever she opens her own mouth, disaster ensues.

I believe there is a lot of good in what Hillary mentioned about the $5,000.00 per child if written in correctly. If it is set up on a 18 year maturity and a set interest rate gauranteed by the government. The bond can only be good if the child has graduated, which should be a shot in the arm to get responsble parents to teach child a real value in life. Oh and didn't our government just vote to support a foreign police action at the tune of $180,000,000.00 for next year. Sounds like Rudi needs to go back to economics class.

Thanks for your input. Apparently only rich people should be allowed to have kids. My vote is that only smart people should be able to. That excludes you Christine.

Rudy, $20billion is about what we spend in a month in Iraq. So maybe we can come up with an agreement to take one month off from the war per year to help finance the education of future generations of Americans. I vote December. Everybody loves Christmas/chanukah/kwanzah

Brian in Denver...I refer you to Sally in Vegas...and I will add don't foget all those illegals giving birth to their US citizens...20 billion is the starting figure...where will it end? Stupid plan, stupid woman, stupid supporters...sorry Clinton News Network ,I know you love her, please don't censor me!

How is this any different than the kiddy credit that the republicans came up with? In there plan a "procreator" gets $1,000 per child per year for 18 years. That's $13,000 more that Hillary is proposing.

The idea of providing a benefit or funds on the birth of a child is not new, and it's already done in most of the industrialized world as a way of promoting the creation of strong families and the creation of more future taxpayers. It's a little clumsy, but it's not an untypical "pro-family" proposal. To oppose it just because it costs money in the short term is, by itself, simplistic, and might be perceived as anti-family. I'm not for it, but arguments can be and are made either way.

If the Hillary would like to help the children of this country's future, how about putting a cap on the cost of a good college education. It beats giving them $5000 dollars when they're born, that's not even a drop in the bucket these days!

Please tell me how this is any different than the Republicans very own kiddy credit where a parent is rewarded for procreating to the tune of $1,000 per year until the child is 18. That is 13K more expensive that Hillary's scheme.

Rudy may not be my favorite, but at least he has business sense! Given the chance, Hillary (and Bill) will sail our country down the river and will collect all the money they can for themselves!! America, Wake Up!! Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, Do you really want Lying Bill and the Interns and the Cigars back in the Oval Office again?? We ALL deserve better than that!

Right on Rudy, I sure don't want my tax money to be help give a bright start to any crummy American kids. I'd much rather see half a trillion go to the military, 200 billion to war with Iraq and soon Iran for a hundred billion of so, military aid to Israel, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia for a few hundred billion more and a few billion or so to Blackwater, KBR, Northrop Grumman, C3D and a few others.

Forgive me if I missed something, but isn't giving $5000 to a newborn that can only be spent on college or a downpayment on a new home VERY similar to the Republican plan of privitizing social security?

Let's see: you take a societal vested interest, fund it with tax dollars, have it sit in a private investment account to grow, and then disburse it to the people?

If you are against privitized social security accounts as well, that's one thing. But, I defy any of you to say how you can be FOR social security accounts and against this $5000 baby bond proposal.

First of all, I want to say I absolutely disagree with Hillary Clinton's idea of giving out $5,000.00 bonds to newborns. In my opinion putting 20 billion a year into proper educations for every child, not just newborns, would be a much better idea. But I would like to take this opportunity to discuss Government Waste for a moment. Have you ever noticed that almost every US Government employee drives a brand new car? And I am not talking about a cheap compact either. They have big expensive gas guzzling cars that cost us a small (no make that a large) fortune every year. Now ask yourself, "Do I get a brand new car every year?" Most likely you don't.

Why? Because you can't afford it. And part of the reason you can't afford it is because you are paying your taxes. I don't mind doing that. I have always supported my country. But I do mind when they waste my tax dollars. What am I supposed to say when someone says they are wasting my tax dollars? "Yeah, I know they are." and just leave it at that? I'm sorry, I can't do that. They are not just wasting my tax dollars on a war that I don't support (specially when they aren't even spending the money to equip the troops properly, whom I do support. They are wasting it on things like new cars that are not really necessary. I have been driving the same car, that wasn't new when I bought it, for several years now, and I bet a lot of you are doing the same thing.

Again I ask, Why? Because between the cost of car payments, insurance, gas, tires, oil, etc., I can't afford to buy a new (or even a used) car every year. I do well to keep the car I have in good shape and moving. And I guarantee you that I drive far less than most people do. I drive less than 4,000 to 5,000 miles a year on the average. In addition to the fact that most of these Government vehicles are brand new every year (and I am not talking about specialty vehicles either, just your run of the mill type of passenger vehicle), they are not always used in what I would consider to be in an "Official" manner.

According to the US Census Bureau, the US Government had 2,720,688 employees for fiscal year 2006. This only includes civilian employees only, and does not include the US Postal Service, or any of the branches of the military. It also does not include State, County, or Local Government vehicles that are purchased using federal funds. You may know some of these people. You may see them at a grocery store some evening, going to a baseball game, or maybe even going the movies, in their "Official US Government Vehicles", some of which have stickers in the windows that clearly state these vehicles are for "Official Use Only". What would the official use of a government vehicle be at a movie theatre at 9:00 PM? Or on weekends? Surely this is not sanctioned usage of these vehicles.

These people are typically paid pretty well as well. Can't they afford to drive their own cars after work hours? It may be an accepted practice to allow employees to keep and use their company cars all the time in the private sector, but I don't believe that falls into "Official Use" of a government vehicle. In my opinion, this is a classic example of Government Waste.

What does this have to do with giving $5,000.00 bonds to newborns, you ask? Nothing directly. I just wanted to make the point that if someone wanted to do something that would cost 20 billion dollars a year, they need to first consider how they will pay for it, and also whether it is Government Waste or not. And if it is, they should be thinking of ways to eliminate that waste. And heaven forbid should they actually think of a constructive use for our tax dollars once in awhile...

Rudolph talks a big talk about how he ran New York but why do I keep hearing the people of New York not backing their leader? Most if not almost all of New Yorker's I hear talking about their view of Rudolph is in a negative way..why is that? Rudolph, you can say you ran a business but it doesn't appear that your personnel were real happy with the job you did. GO DEMS!!! 2008

I'm not entertaining Senator Clinton's suggestion, however if Mr. Guilani is going to balk at the cost of 5 grand per child, I'd like to ask him how much he thinks it costs just to deliver one child and who the heck he thinks pays for that?

Hillary's idea is idiotic! Giuliani isn't much better. His association with Chavez and CINTAS ( who is going to own and operate the "North American Corridor") places him out of contention. The very idea of a North American Union is a traitorous thing in itself. Sacrifice even a small part of our sovereignty for the sake of more wealthy despots!! No thanks Rudy,, go to Spain or hang out with Chavez in South America. (CITGO) They like you,,and for good reason,, your law firm is helping enable them to seize control of our country bit by bit.